Kwing wrote:No matter, my problem with Republics is that the government needs money in order to keep its country in line. Granted, I think the right to bear arms should keep the government on its toes so it's hard-pressed to please its people, but one person with millions of dollars is unlikely to help pay for schooling or road construction, aye?

This...makes no sense. You've touched on three entirely unrelated points. First one: All governments need money, not just republics. Second: Am I reading this wrong, or are you saying that the Second Amendment was made to make it difficult for the government to make American citizens happy? Because, a) it was written to help ensure that we can fight back against a tyrannical government, and b) pleasing it's citizens has never been the role of American government. Nor should it ever be.Third: Bullshit. Many billionaires give a disgusting amount of money away.

Kwing wrote:Furthermore, the more money governments put into health care and education, the less the citizens have to pay for it. You see where I'm going with this?

I don't. The money that governments put into any program comes directly from the tax payers. It's just their way of taking money, pocketing some of it, and then giving it back. Plus, the government shouldn't even have it's nose in either of those markets.

Kwing wrote:Also, distributing money in a more 'liberal' way helps small businesses rise to power and prevents big businesses (Wal-Mart, Monsanto, Baxter, and McDonalds come to mind) from running amok and pissing on their employees. We need to ensure freedom from both our government and businesses. Maintaining a balance is difficult.

You're high aren't you? Competition and innovation is what helps businesses rise, not handouts for failures. If a small business can't compete, it deserves to fail so that it can be replaced by a better business that can compete.

We already have freedom from business, though. You are not forced into purchasing their products, working for them, or in any other way, playing their game. There is zero sympathy to be had for Wal-Mart employees who bitch about their wages and working conditions. It's a voluntary employment and they can quit at any time. If finding another job is so difficult that they can't leave, then maybe they should have got off their fat asses and learned a marketable trade.

A liberal distribution of money just promotes laziness, stifles creativity and innovation by rewarding failures, and causes even greater harm to our economy.

@Vulpine: The main problem with vastly rich members of society is, in my opinion, not in the potential lack of donations to nonprofit organizations (as you said, many rich people donate profusely) but instead the extremely large influence and power the ultrarich have. One of the most basic values of a democracy is that the voices of all citizens should be treated equally. With lobbies, votes are skewed not in favor of the general populace but of the favor of the wealthy. One example of this is the incredible power of the Jewish lobby: what constitutes a minority of people constitutes a majority of political opinion. (I have nothing against the Jews; they were just the first well-funded minority lobby that came to mind).

As to your point about capitalism and the rise of the better businesses, I find an unregulated market to be very dangerous. The "golden idea" of capitalism revolves around a natural selection of sorts where the businesses with the best products rise to the top. Unfortunately, this problem-solving mentality is not the true case: it turns out pretending to fix problems is a lot more profitable than actually fixing them. This is blatantly obvious with the BP Oil Spill, where the first reaction of BP was to run an advertising campaign to clear their image. In the case of oil companies, manipulation of the market results in rising oil prices for the simple reason of bringing more profit to the oil companies. In this case, the oil companies are not fixing problems but creating new, profitable problems.

In a purely capitalist system, businesses will not evolve to fix the most or hardest problems but instead to make the most money. Any venture that produces large amounts of money, beneficial to the general populace or not, is favored over ventures that solve problems alone.

@tucak: HackThisSite is not directly affiliate with HackThisZine. Jeremy Hammond, our anarchist founder, has not been directly involved in HackThisSite for quite some time.

sanddbox wrote:it turns out pretending to fix problems is a lot more profitable than actually fixing them.

definitely. For some reason, the idea of the "throw away society" and how everything is made of plastic, comes to mind. but that's off topic...i think, I'll let you guys get back to your political ranting

Goatboy wrote:Oh, that's simple. All you need to do is dedicate many years of your life to studying security.

sanddbox wrote:The main problem with vastly rich members of society is, in my opinion, not in the potential lack of donations to nonprofit organizations (as you said, many rich people donate profusely) but instead the extremely large influence and power the ultrarich have. One of the most basic values of a democracy is that the voices of all citizens should be treated equally. With lobbies, votes are skewed not in favor of the general populace but of the favor of the wealthy. One example of this is the incredible power of the Jewish lobby: what constitutes a minority of people constitutes a majority of political opinion. (I have nothing against the Jews; they were just the first well-funded minority lobby that came to mind).

I very much agree with you here and would love to see lobbying completely dismantled. A very large wall between government and the economy would probably be a good place to work toward, although I am willing to concede that some regulation would be prudent.

sanddbox wrote:As to your point about capitalism and the rise of the better businesses, I find an unregulated market to be very dangerous. The "golden idea" of capitalism revolves around a natural selection of sorts where the businesses with the best products rise to the top. Unfortunately, this problem-solving mentality is not the true case: it turns out pretending to fix problems is a lot more profitable than actually fixing them. This is blatantly obvious with the BP Oil Spill, where the first reaction of BP was to run an advertising campaign to clear their image. In the case of oil companies, manipulation of the market results in rising oil prices for the simple reason of bringing more profit to the oil companies. In this case, the oil companies are not fixing problems but creating new, profitable problems.

If I gave the impression of supporting unhinged capitalism, then that's my bad. I used to be idealistic enough to believe in it but have since adopted a "necessary evil" point of view involving a mixed economy: capitalism with a dash of socialism and market regulation.

While BP may be a fine example of big business screw-ups, they are hardly representative of all corporations. A good number of them have relatively unblemished track records. This is not to say, however, that I don't believe some form of leash is necessary to keep them from running amok. We could look at Toyota's recent issue with their gas pedals: They screwed up, owned up to it, and fixed it.

sanddbox wrote:In a purely capitalist system, businesses will not evolve to fix the most or hardest problems but instead to make the most money. Any venture that produces large amounts of money, beneficial to the general populace or not, is favored over ventures that solve problems alone.

Not necessarily. Granted, we do have a huge market in this country for businesses that do nothing but channel and manipulate money i.e., banks selling contracts and loans, which can artificially inflate or deflate their values (this should also be dismantled), but most businesses that solve problems are also making money at it. Even if it's just a simple service, such as delivering groceries to people who have some form of mobility impairment, you've solved the problem of them getting food and probably made money at the same time. Now, no one may be willing to tackle the "most or hardest problems" if they are not deemed to be financially feasible because it's just stupid to throw millions of dollars into implementing a solution that will only save you a few thousand per year. This is one area where you're definitely correct, though, in that businesses care more about making money than solving problems. However, I think the pendulum swings both ways; you can find plenty of examples on both sides of the argument.

I think EVERYBODY should give money to charity...but we can't force anybody to do anything with their money!

This subject really has nothing to do with politics. There are greedy billionaires on both sides. The only difference is that the left wants to tax the **** out of those who have money. I think the problem with the argument the left uses is that they use the ultra-rich billionaires who throw money away all the time... to represent all the hard working small business owners of america!Half of all "rich people" in america are small business owners.

The false persona that we need a monetary economy is repulsive. Money is just a symbol of oppression. In a government we can't control, we lay down our ideas and pick up the idea's that are given to us. We lack originality and individual freedom. Argue all you want about politics and if you should be an elephant or a donkey. Maybe you want to be 3rd party, nonetheless, your playing into what controls you.

Bite the hand that feeds.

A broken clock is right twice a day, however, I am neither up that early nor up that late...

h1ack wrote:I think EVERYBODY should give money to charity...but we can't force anybody to do anything with their money!

This subject really has nothing to do with politics. There are greedy billionaires on both sides. The only difference is that the left wants to tax the **** out of those who have money. I think the problem with the argument the left uses is that they use the ultra-rich billionaires who throw money away all the time... to represent all the hard working small business owners of america!Half of all "rich people" in america are small business owners.

Beautiful. That deliciously fluffy souffle of irrationality and incoherence with just the slightest pinch of a semblance of sanity was an excellent compliment to this thread.

The use of the both overused and fallacious "the left does it too!" argument truly added to the beauty of the whole piece.

h1ack wrote:I think EVERYBODY should give money to charity...but we can't force anybody to do anything with their money!

This subject really has nothing to do with politics. There are greedy billionaires on both sides. The only difference is that the left wants to tax the **** out of those who have money. I think the problem with the argument the left uses is that they use the ultra-rich billionaires who throw money away all the time... to represent all the hard working small business owners of america!Half of all "rich people" in america are small business owners.

Beautiful. That deliciously fluffy souffle of irrationality and incoherence with just the slightest pinch of a semblance of sanity was an excellent compliment to this thread.

The use of the both overused and fallacious "the left does it too!" argument truly added to the beauty of the whole piece.

10/10; would read again.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I'm saying that the money we donate is not a political issue- it is a moral issue, and that we should all give more. Do you disagree with that?

Are you saying there aren't greedy people on the left? Did you know that conservatives give tons more to charity than liberals?

Talk about fallacious- you insulted my writing plenty but you never debated ONE point I made- NOT ONE!

Try a fact based response this time around.

Last edited by h1ack on Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.